Ray I just got this confirmed from Mike: The retirement health care benefits, of 2% at the age of 55 and 0% at the age of 60 with the limitations of retiring after May 1, remain in place. The city has proposed increasing the cost of these benefits, our position is to keep current benefits in place. This matter is being negotiated through the arbitration process and will be resolved with the arbitrator’s decision in the future. For those inquiring there’s currently no change in that benefit.
Why are we leaving it up to FOP or local 2 to try and negotiate better raises for us? The mayor offered the teachers union a better financial package then we’re getting why shouldn’t we be worthy of that same or better? Are the Sgt.’s and Captains on board with this offer? Is it true it was all three had to accept this or the city would pull this offer?
We are not leaving up to FOP, we negotiated a raise in line with the factors that are considered by an arbitrator that we deemed fair and reasonable. If FOP is awarded more, we will receive that in the future.
We can’t control what is offered other unions, we made the decision based on the
facts, research, and circumstances presented to us.
All the PBPA unions unanimously agreed to accept the terms.
The way the system of contract negotiations is set up is ludicrous. What incentive does the city have to ever have to settle a contract in a timely fashion. They realize that they can sit on out money interest free and then hope (usually successfully) that the arbitrator loads most of the raises on the back end. Shall we wait till the economy tanks, so the city and arbitrator can cry “poor”……again? I had someone from FOP tell me that “our unions don’t negotiate in the public forum”. Why? The teachers do and it seems to work for them. You can’t have a gentlemen’s agreement when only one party conducts itself as gentlemen (and ladies).
I realize that “we”( pbpa lieutenants) possibly won’t be going to arbitration but I was commenting in a general sense. My point being that our negotiating bodies in general always allow the city to hold all the cards. We need to get the ball rolling sooner. It would be nice to have a contractual annual cost of living raise based on government indexes built in and then negotiate from there.
Apparently you did not read the attachment which indicated that the consumer price index is for the last three years. Please be more informed before making a comment
“The CPI average for the past three years is hovering near 1.9%. These raises put us slightly above that number.”
-Letter from PB&PA Captains, Lieutenants, & Sergeants
Actually, with the increased health-care contribution and the yearly increasing salary cap, we are under the 1.9%
In 2020 Family contribution will raise from $92.87/check to $165.68/check.
Add $24.86 in 2021
Add $24.85 in 2022
Very disappointing. Why don’t we play more of a hard line in negotiations? If the city was ready to give 16% over 4 years to the teachers, you’re telling me the best we could do is this proposal? 13% over 6 years. I find it very hard to believe that an arbitrator wouldn’t take that into consideration when determining salary. Also, the fact that we are paying 9% into pension and not 2%, so we are already saving city huge amounts of money. I truly feel sorry for anyone that has more than 3 years to go until retirement. More give backs on medical? On our regular salary paychecks, this damn near looks like a revenue neutral negotiation, never mind us coming up with a little bit. I also question those inflation numbers. The bills I’m paying sure haven’t gone up that little. I vote thumbs down.
Do we not have a vote as a member on this ? Why should we agree to something less than what the teachers get ? The 1.5 percent increase to health care and increased co-pays will make this raise a wash. I have no idea what happened to the members having a day in their contract negotiations.
Although the CTU was offered 16% in their financial package that was not the reason it was turned down by the CTU membership. That being said I have some reservations regarding this proposal, #1 being that we are agreeing to anything, specifically financials, and arbitrating other provisions of the negotiations. I don’t know if it is a good idea to split the CBA into portions of agreed and not agreed points thus relying on arbitration on those points. Furthermore, as others have stated the financial burden on city employees has only been exasperated by the increased tax burden on us as homeowners has negated any pay raise. Again, I would like to see the specifics as they are proposed in writing in order to make the best decision possible (I know they are forthcoming as this was just announced). Also, any proposed retro should be front loaded and leave the lower percentages on the back end.
Does this go to a membership vote? I’m assuming not.
As presented, unless I am reading this wrong, we (Lts) will not see a 13.5% raise over the life of the contract, but rather 11.5%, as the 2% from 2016 has already been awarded (no retro for second half of 2016). Only the Capts and Sgts will see the additional 2%.
The 2% was already awarded To any new tenant that was at that rank from July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. If you were a member of the Sergeants Association you’ll receive that 2% if you were a member of the lieutenants Association you already received that benefit
Has the retiree healthcare changed – specifically at age 55 / 2% or will this be part of continued negotiations?
Ray I just got this confirmed from Mike: The retirement health care benefits, of 2% at the age of 55 and 0% at the age of 60 with the limitations of retiring after May 1, remain in place. The city has proposed increasing the cost of these benefits, our position is to keep current benefits in place. This matter is being negotiated through the arbitration process and will be resolved with the arbitrator’s decision in the future. For those inquiring there’s currently no change in that benefit.
Is there a timeline for the results of arbitration relative to the issues of retirement healthcare benefits remaining at 2% for those 55-59 YOA?
Why are we leaving it up to FOP or local 2 to try and negotiate better raises for us? The mayor offered the teachers union a better financial package then we’re getting why shouldn’t we be worthy of that same or better? Are the Sgt.’s and Captains on board with this offer? Is it true it was all three had to accept this or the city would pull this offer?
We are not leaving up to FOP, we negotiated a raise in line with the factors that are considered by an arbitrator that we deemed fair and reasonable. If FOP is awarded more, we will receive that in the future.
We can’t control what is offered other unions, we made the decision based on the
facts, research, and circumstances presented to us.
All the PBPA unions unanimously agreed to accept the terms.
What is the breakdown percentages for raises for each year for the 6 year contract? Do they go in effect 01JulXX each year Starting 01Jul2016?
1.0
2.25
2.25
2.0
2.0
2.0
The way the system of contract negotiations is set up is ludicrous. What incentive does the city have to ever have to settle a contract in a timely fashion. They realize that they can sit on out money interest free and then hope (usually successfully) that the arbitrator loads most of the raises on the back end. Shall we wait till the economy tanks, so the city and arbitrator can cry “poor”……again? I had someone from FOP tell me that “our unions don’t negotiate in the public forum”. Why? The teachers do and it seems to work for them. You can’t have a gentlemen’s agreement when only one party conducts itself as gentlemen (and ladies).
I realize that “we”( pbpa lieutenants) possibly won’t be going to arbitration but I was commenting in a general sense. My point being that our negotiating bodies in general always allow the city to hold all the cards. We need to get the ball rolling sooner. It would be nice to have a contractual annual cost of living raise based on government indexes built in and then negotiate from there.
Apparently you did not read the attachment which indicated that the consumer price index is for the last three years. Please be more informed before making a comment
I agree, I suggest you begin lobbying down in Springfield to change the negotiation process
Not my job to lobby in Springfield. That’s why I pay union dues.
You are correct, I should not be snarky, my apologies.
Has there been any change in the healthcare benefit for those that retire after reaching 60 years of age. Will there now be a cost?
The retiree health care remains in place. The issue is part of the forthcoming arbitration process.
“The CPI average for the past three years is hovering near 1.9%. These raises put us slightly above that number.”
-Letter from PB&PA Captains, Lieutenants, & Sergeants
Actually, with the increased health-care contribution and the yearly increasing salary cap, we are under the 1.9%
In 2020 Family contribution will raise from $92.87/check to $165.68/check.
Add $24.86 in 2021
Add $24.85 in 2022
So basically the raise will cover the increase in insurance cost.
What are the doctor visit co-pays? Prescription costs? Have those increased as well ?
Very disappointing. Why don’t we play more of a hard line in negotiations? If the city was ready to give 16% over 4 years to the teachers, you’re telling me the best we could do is this proposal? 13% over 6 years. I find it very hard to believe that an arbitrator wouldn’t take that into consideration when determining salary. Also, the fact that we are paying 9% into pension and not 2%, so we are already saving city huge amounts of money. I truly feel sorry for anyone that has more than 3 years to go until retirement. More give backs on medical? On our regular salary paychecks, this damn near looks like a revenue neutral negotiation, never mind us coming up with a little bit. I also question those inflation numbers. The bills I’m paying sure haven’t gone up that little. I vote thumbs down.
Do we not have a vote as a member on this ? Why should we agree to something less than what the teachers get ? The 1.5 percent increase to health care and increased co-pays will make this raise a wash. I have no idea what happened to the members having a day in their contract negotiations.
The counter proposal that was excepted was presented to the board, and was approved unanimously.
If the accept raise package was the city’s counter proposal, what was our original demand?
Although the CTU was offered 16% in their financial package that was not the reason it was turned down by the CTU membership. That being said I have some reservations regarding this proposal, #1 being that we are agreeing to anything, specifically financials, and arbitrating other provisions of the negotiations. I don’t know if it is a good idea to split the CBA into portions of agreed and not agreed points thus relying on arbitration on those points. Furthermore, as others have stated the financial burden on city employees has only been exasperated by the increased tax burden on us as homeowners has negated any pay raise. Again, I would like to see the specifics as they are proposed in writing in order to make the best decision possible (I know they are forthcoming as this was just announced). Also, any proposed retro should be front loaded and leave the lower percentages on the back end.
Does this go to a membership vote? I’m assuming not.
As presented, unless I am reading this wrong, we (Lts) will not see a 13.5% raise over the life of the contract, but rather 11.5%, as the 2% from 2016 has already been awarded (no retro for second half of 2016). Only the Capts and Sgts will see the additional 2%.
Am I correct?
The 2% was already awarded To any new tenant that was at that rank from July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. If you were a member of the Sergeants Association you’ll receive that 2% if you were a member of the lieutenants Association you already received that benefit
Thanks for the reply.
No vote, and you are correct on the calculations
So, I’m sorry for clarification, the membership is NOT voting on this? The board’s acceptance is overall approval for the membership?
Yes, no vote